Quick Election Roundup.

The victory of the Democrat in Virginia's governor's race will be seen as aiding moderate Southerners within the party, including that state's outgoing governor, presidential hopeful Mark Warner. Unfortunately, these Democrats are "moderates" not in terms of taxes and spending, but with regards to opposing civil unions and gay adoption. But the Washington Post misses that angle.

In California, moderate Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (who opposes gay marriage unless voter-approved but supports civil unions and gay adoption) was further weakened by his state's rejection of measures he backed to cap state spending and strip partisan lawmakers of their redistricting powers. Too bad.

As expected, Texas voters overwhelmingly approved, 76% to 24%, one of the nation's most sweeping constitutional bans on same-sex marriage (or anything remotely similar). That makes the Lone Star State the 19th to write anti-gay marriage prohibitions into its constitution. No anti-gay marriage initiative has yet failed to easily pass in a popular vote. In Maine, however, voters did reject a proposal to repeal the state's new gay-anti-discrimination law.

More: Tim Hulsey blogs on the Virginia governor's election, noting that winning Democrat Tim Kaine:

wore his Catholic religion on his sleeve, making sure to "out-Jesus" [Republican Jerry] Kilgore at every opportunity. He made a point of supporting an anti-Gay marriage amendment pending in next year's Virginia General Assembly (even though he has voiced his support for Gay-rights issues in the past). His campaign even engaged in some not-too-subtle Gay-baiting of the noticeably effeminate Kilgore.

On that last matter, there's more here.

So, is this the winning Democratic strategy? If Kaine's mentor, outgoing Gov. Mark Warner, bests Hillary for the Democratic presidential nod, will gay groups give him the same unconditional support they lavished on Kerry/Edwards even as the latter supported state amendments banning gay marriage?

You know the answer.

Al Franken, the Left’s Rush.

Recently I was given a copy of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer. It's a swift read that exposes many accounts of liberal arrogance. In one chapter Schweizer looks at left-wing talk show host (and former Saturday Night Live head writer) Al Franken, who in the past didn't shy away from expressing his contempt toward gays.

Schweizer notes that Franken, while attending Harvard, had a skit rejected by that school's famed Hasting Pudding Club. Later, while writing for SNL in 1976, Franken was interviewed by the Harvard Crimson, which related the following:

He recalled writing a skit called "Seamen on Broadway" that was rejected from the Hasty Pudding show "by some preppie so they could take some other preppie's skit." Franken started to smile again, but his tone was serious, too serious. "It's not preppies, cause I'm a preppie myself. I just don't like homosexuals. If you ask me, they're all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia." The smile became so broad it pushed his eyes shut. He couldn't stand it any longer. "Put that in, put that in," Franken laughed, leaning over the desk. "I'd love to see that in The Crimson."

Gay Patriot has already picked up on this. I'll add that it was always pretty clear that Franken's SNL Stuart Smalley character (based on the real host of a New York City public access show) was brimming with contempt for effeminate gays. Franken has always, it now seems, been a hater.

More: Reader Curtis comments: "I don't know how anyone could read Franken's words and then defend his joking gleefully about a gay-bashing death (or so it certainly seems) as just his being 'ironic.' I was in college in 1976, and the campus leftists were very hostile toward gays. It wasn't until the '80s that gay leftists ingratiated themselves with the larger left, which decided all those gay foot soldiers could be useful."

That rings true to me, too.

And while I'm linking to Gay Patriot, he also has a nice posting on the foolish politics of gay activists who portray (literally!) George Bush as Adolf Hitler.

A Local Voting Day.

I live in Virginia. In Tuesday's gubernatorial election, the option is to vote for the Democrats/Republicans (pick one) because they're less awful than the Republicans/Democrats (pick one).

Both major party candidates for governor not only oppose gay marriage, but favor keeping adoption by gay couples illegal, although the Republican opposes gay marriage/adoption more adamantly. On the other hand, Virginia's Democratic governors always push through big tax hikes in our already extraordinarily high state tax rates in order to grow government and increase their party's base (and, more generally, government's tentacles).

I don't think self-branded gay advocacy groups, who raise money with the promise to advance gay equality, should consider non-gay issues in making electoral endorsements. But I do think private individual voters who are gay can and should consider other issues relating to the well being and prosperity of the commonwealth. My decision, in this election, is not to vote for either the Democrat or the Republican.

More: Here's an example of the political problem: Our state's outgoing Democratic governor, Mark Warner, opposed a bill passed by the Republican-controlled legislature (with bipartisan support) that not only banned anything approaching civil unions, but any legal arrangements that might bestow marriage-associated rights on gay couples.

Although Warner tried unsuccessfully to strip out the most-offensive contract-banning parts of the bill (while supporting the civil union and marriage ban), he nevertheless decided not to spend political capital on vetoing the full measure when it crossed his desk. A veto probably would have been overturned; still, it would have been a strong statement on behalf of legal equality by a popular governor not up for re-election. But gay votes for Democrats come with no price tag, so why bother?

More Recent Postings
10/30/05 - 11/5/05

Gays & Abortion, Again.

Law professor Stephen Clark provides another look at why constitutional decisions voiding anti-"sodomy" laws (Lawrence) and voiding anti-abortion restrictions (Roe) "aren't conjoined twins." He argues:

Lawrence is the considerably stronger of the two and is less likely to be threatened by any separation. Pro-choice advocates have far more to gain from associating Roe with Lawrence than gay-rights advocates have to gain from associating Lawrence with Roe. Conflating the two may put Lawrence at unnecessary risk.

But failure to pledge fealty to Roe was a key reason why leading gay groups such as NGLTF and HRC condemned John Roberts, and NGLTF has already condemned Samuel Alito. No, abortion is no longer always stated up front, but it's there, lurking in the "penumbra" and "emanations" of the language about "far right extremism."

Further: Here's more in the way of constructive criticism on the failed tactics of groups such as HRC, from Washington Blade editor Chris Crain. He notes, for instance:

Last year, when Laura Bush was pressed by the media on whether she supported her husband's constitutional ban on gay marriage, her innocuous answer was that the issue was "something people should talk about and debate." Rather than welcome the invitation, HRC's then-leader Cheryl Jacques released a letter criticizing the first lady, saying there were more important issues-like the economy!-for Americans to discuss.

Sad, but all too typical, and still ongoing.

On Alito, It’s HRC vs. HRC.

The homepage of the Human Rights Campaign prominently features a photo of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, which links to HRC's rather dismissive assessment ("The Alito Record-Negatives for Gay and Transgender Americans"). [Editor's note: modified since originally posted.]

But interestingly, if you follow the press release links you find Alito's 1971 Gay Support Raises Hope, citing this AP story.

Is HRC of two minds? Or perhaps the big homepage-linked item is red meat for the membership while the press release is meant to help divide Alito from his conservative backers, which would explain this pickup of HRC's release by the religious right's CNS News. Or maybe I'm just being churlish.

Another Flawed Sex Survey

First published in the Chicago Free Press on November 2, 2005.

In mid-September, the National Center for Health Statistics, a branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, released a 55-page study claiming that 4.1 percent of both men and women ages 18 to 44 labeled themselves homosexual or bisexual.

In addition, the survey found that 6 percent of men 15 to 44 have had oral or anal sex with another man and 11.2 percent of women 15 to 44 have had some sort of unspecified "sexual experience" with another women. For men age 25 to 44 the figure was 6.5 percent and for women 25 to 44 the figure was 10.7 percent.

Finally, the survey found that, depending on age group, between 2.6 and 3.3 percent of men have had oral or anal sex with another man in the last year and anywhere between 2.4 and 7.7 percent of women have had a "sexual experience" with another women in the last year.

As with most such surveys, the study made claims for its rigor and accuracy and was accepted uncritically by the mainstream press. It was, after all, based on information from 4,928 men and 7,643 women and derived "sensitive" information about sex by having respondents enter their answers into a laptop computer rather than telling the interviewer directly.

But careful analysis revealed ambiguities, inadequacies, inconsistencies and omissions.

The most obvious problem was that more than 20 percent of the people contacted refused to participate. Why did they refuse? A distrust of privacy assurances? Shyness about sex? A desire to cover up something? Although women generally tend to be more reticent about sex, a higher proportion of men (22 percent) than women (20 percent) refused to participate.

Another problem was that while only 4.1 percent of both men and women labeled themselves "homosexual" or "bisexual," almost the same number (3.8 to 3.9 percent) labeled themselves "something else" than either of those or "heterosexual."

No doubt some people, especially at lower educational levels, did not understand the terms homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. Kinsey often pointed out that standardized questionnaires offer no way to clarify meaning or adapt language to the level of the respondent.

Then too, some people may insist on an affirmative term such as "gay" or "lesbian" rather than the clinical sounding "homosexual." Or they may prefer some argot term such as queer, kinky, swinger or polyamorous. Similarly, some African-Americans insist they are not gay, which they associate with whites or effeminacy, but say they are "down low" or "same-gender loving." This latter seems especially likely since a stunning 7.3 percent of Hispanic men and 7.5 percent of black men-more than three times the percentage of whites-said they were "something else."

Other black and Latino men think of sex with other men as just "having fun with friends" but insist that "sex" is only what you do with women, so they might actually think of themselves as heterosexual or "something else."

In addition, a much higher percentage of black (3.2 percent) and Latino men (3.5 percent) than white men (0.7 percent) refused to answer the sexual orientation question at all. So another disadvantage of questionnaires is that there is no way to pressure people to answer. But it is worth remembering that Kinsey pointed out long ago that if he met resistance anywhere it was when he reached questions about homosexuality.

Then there was the problem that the survey asked men only about the disease-transmitting behavior of oral and anal sex, but asked women about any "any sexual experience" at all with another woman-which could include kissing, "making out," body rubbing, or masturbation with a partner.

The study does not explain why it was so much more interested in any sort of female same-sex eroticism. But by refusing to include analogous male same-sex body rubbing, interfemoral (intercrural) sex and masturbation with a partner, the latter a common enough activity among some gay men, the survey artificially depressed the quantity of gay sex, the number of gay men and, accordingly, its reliability as an index of sexual behavior.

There were other problems too. If the survey wanted to find out how many gays there were or how much homosexuality there was, why ask if people had engaged in same-sex sex at least once-which could mean just once or a very few times? Asking, as the survey does, about same-sex sex in the last year is a little more relevant, but you would think the survey would ask something about how frequently with how many partners. But no.

And what about the 23 percent of the self-defined "homosexual" men who said they were attracted only to women? Kinsey would never have let anyone get away with such an obvious contradiction. Did they mean they like women better as friends, or are attractive to women, or want to be attracted to women, or are attracted to the idea of being women? Who knows? With a standardized computer questionnaire, no one could notice the discrepancy at the time and find out.

This is what the CDC offers as state of the art sex research.

Gay Rights Before Palestinian Statehood

Much criticism has been leveled at gay organizations for their reluctance to make much ado about the Iranian government's public hanging of two gay youths this past summer. The incident was not a rarity in the Islamic world, but the availability of photographs documenting the murder stunned a gay community complacent when it comes to the rights of gays abroad-perhaps because of our own, relatively tame, struggles here at home.

While the outrage over gay organizations' indifference to the plight of Iranian gays was necessary, it ought to be directed toward a political situation where gay Americans can have more influence: the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In this tumultuous dispute, there is plenty of room for debate about the control of land, whether or not Israeli responses to terror are too aggressive, and what the final political settlement should entail. But let there be no mistake: In Israel, gays enjoy the freedoms and tolerance of a liberal, Western democracy. In the disputed territories run by the Palestinian Authority, gays are routinely harassed, tortured and murdered.

A 2002 article in The New Republic documented the dire predicament of several gay Palestinians. A 21-year-old recalled that he "was forced to stand in sewage water up to his neck, his head covered by a sack filled with feces, and then he was thrown into a dark cell infested with insects and other creatures he could feel but not see." One man fled to Tel Aviv, only to be captured by the Palestinian police upon his return to Nablus, a city in the West Bank.

"They put him in a pit," a friend of the man recalled. "It was the fast of Ramadan, and they decided to make him fast the whole month but without any break at night. They denied him food and water until he died in that hole." Tel Aviv, Israel's flourishing gay hub, has become for Palestinian gays what Miami is for Cubans: a refuge of freedom from tyranny.

In August, Israel evacuated settlers from the Gaza strip, helping to make way for the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state. But what would a Palestinian state actually look like? That is a question that the United States and Israel must ask before acceding to its creation. Surely, the United States should not expect Israel to agree to live alongside a neighbor that is highly militarized, territorially aggressive, and run by Islamic extremists. Imagine if Canada fit this profile: would we not have serious problems with such a prospect?

Comments earlier this month from Hamas's man in Gaza-newly emboldened by the Israeli pullout-are not encouraging. On the question of gay rights, Mahmoud Zahar recently said, according to the Times of London, "Are these the laws for which the Palestinian street is waiting? For us to give rights to homosexuals and to lesbians, a minority of perverts and the mentally and morally sick?" Hamas is a major player in Palestinian politics; in January, it won 76 out of 118 Gaza municipal council seats in the first-ever election held in the territory.

Granted, gays are oppressed in most areas of the world, so why should the United States pay any particular attention to Palestinian ones? Because our involvement in the Arab-Israeli peace process gives us the ability to influence Palestinian politics.

Advocating that the creation of a Palestinian state be conditioned on human rights, and specifically gay rights, is one step gay groups can take. The United States is intimately involved in the creation of a two-state solution, and it would be an affront to the ideals of this country were we to encourage, never mind preside over, the creation of an Islamist regime intent on murdering gay people.

For the same reason that we must see democracy through in Iraq-in order to leave that country behind in a better state than in which we found it-the United States and the international community have the exact same obligation in helping Israelis and Palestinians.

Not surprisingly, gay rights groups have ignored gay Palestinians, as has the pre-eminent human rights organization, Amnesty International. The Palestinian "struggle" has long been a cause celebre for the left and it is tempting to view the Palestinians as an oppressed underdog fighting the imperialist, apartheid Israeli state.

As difficult as life may be for the Palestinians (a predicament caused almost entirely by their support for terrorism and corrupt leaders), nothing can excuse their systematic oppression of gays. By standing up for the rights of gay Palestinians, groups like Amnesty and the Human Rights Campaign may lose support from their more radical members. But these organizations are worth nothing if they remain indifferent to the fates of people they are intended to protect-all for the purpose of maintaining harmony on the left.

More on the ‘Conservative’ Case for SSM.

IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter guest blogs at The Volokh Conspiracy on same-sex marriage. This site is very popular with smart conservatives, so kudos to Dale.

By the way, Dale's posting was in response to an earlier, anti-gay marriage piece by the dreadful Maggie Gallagher. Libertarian Cathy Young has more to say about Gallagher and the debate over at Volokh, here.